PC Minutes 1997-09-02ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met with Chair Lubin presiding. Present were
Commissioners Greene, Haney and O'Donnell. Commissioner Rondeau is absent. Associate
Planner Helen Elder is in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously
carried the minutes of the August 5, 1997 Planning Commission . meeting were approved as
prepared.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM (CONTINUED) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
96 -541, TENTATIVE TRACT 2220, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT CASE NO. 96-001; REQUEST FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON FOUR (4) ITEMS REFERRED BY
CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REVISED PLANS FOR THE CENTRAL COAST TOWN
CENTER (CCTC); APPLICANT, AGRA, INC. (CENTRAL COAST TOWN CENTER;
REPRESENTATIVE, HOWARD MANN; LOCATED AT WEST BRANCH STREET,
CAMINO MERCADO AND RANCHO PARKWAY (RANCHO GRANDE)
Chairman Lubin pointed out that tonight's meeting is not a public hearing. We are in the
process of deliberation and will be hearing from the Planning Commission concerning the
subcommittees that have met on three (3) different items. He noted the subcommittees will be
reporting to the full Commission tonight to review their findings and submit them to the City
Council by September 9th.
The first item to consider is the subcommittee findings for overriding economic conditions. The
subcommittee consists of Commissioners Haney and Greene. Since the Planning Commission
has reviewed the findings in their packets, they will be talking about substance and errors or
corrections without reading through the complete findings.
Commissioner Haney stated that Commissioner Greene and he were charged with the issues
regarding overriding considerations. There are seven findings that summarize the essence of the
Planning Commission hearings on this topic. In addition to the findings, there are five (5)
recommendations to the City Council concerning overriding considerations and the economic
issues.
Commissioner Haney read the Summary of Findings. Commissioner Greene stated there was
a split of opinion on Recommendation No. 4, found on Page 2, which resulted in alternative
language proposals, therefore, we need to select Alternative 4.a or 4.b, whichever one reflects
the majority view of the Commission on that particular recommendation only.
Chairman Lubin stated that in talking about the specifics in terms of sales tax, net sales tax and
some of the other items, he wants to make sure it is clear that we are talking about the currently
proposed project. It may be best to place that language in the Summary of Findings or in the
title of the first section which is "The Commission Finds the Following Facts to be True."
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2
September 2, 1997
Commissioner Haney referred to the first sentence in the Summary of Findings, and suggested
revising it to read: "The Planning Commission finds that the currently proposed project is
a significantly different project overall than was originally evaluated..." Commissioner Haney
pointed out that Commission findings 1 and 2 specifically relative to the sales tax, reference the
currently proposed project and suggested this reference could be bold and underlined.
With regard to Recommendation No. 4, "Alternative Language Proposals ", Commissioner
Greene stated that if the perspective is that the developer, being the primary and sole reason for
the decision to change the proposal from the July 1996 plan to the currently proposed project
and thereby the basis for the need for a supplemental economic analysis, he wouldn't have a
problem with selecting the one that requires the developer to bear the entire cost associated with
the preparation of a supplemental economic report. Commissioner Haney commented regarding
the alternative language proposals, stating he tends to lean a little stronger toward Alternative
4.(a).
Commissioner O'Donnell inquired if the Planning Commission is deciding which of these two
language proposals to send to the City Council, or recommending they look at the alternatives
and make a decision rather than the Commission make a decision. He stated at this point he is
not leaning heavily toward either one. Chairman Lubin stated he would lean toward Alternative
A because he agrees with the general consensus that had there been no changes in the plan,
which would have necessitated these discussions, there would have been no need for additional
costs. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend alternative language proposed in
4.(a).
Commissioner Haney recommended that under Item 2 of the recommendations, the first sentence
be modified to read: "Prior to issuing further project approvals or permits, the City Council
requires that the currently proposed project and any future proposal clearly and conclusively
demonstrate (using conservative estimates) that it meets the previously approved Overriding
Considerations findings of $300 - 400,000 in net sales tax benefit to the City, and 820 -850 net
new jobs after consideration of job displacement."
Commissioner Haney suggested a change under Appendix A. III. 4. as a clarification, adding
to the beginning "The identification of... Also, under Appendix A. I, we have provided under
Item 3 projections for 1 year, 5 year and 10 year periods involving our sales tax benefits and
our estimate of sales tax revenue to the City. The original was not included in Appendix A. (II)
affecting jobs, and perhaps we should look beyond the initial job creation period to some
reasonable period, three (3) years or five (5) years out. He stated that in some of the national
studies, there is a job loss factor that goes beyond the initial year.
After a brief discussion, the Commission agreed to do the same thing on job benefit estimates
as for sales tax benefits. Commissioner Haney proposed modifying II to include as a lead item
No. 3 in Appendix A. I, as follows: "1. Projections should involve more than the initial period
(a minimum of years 3 and 5) and should identify a range of estimates (from conservative to
realistic to optimistic). Item numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 under II would be renumbered as 2, 3, 4,
and 5.
On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, and unanimously
carried, the Commission adopted the subcommittee findings relative to overriding considerations
with the modifications approved by the Commission during deliberations.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3
September 2, 1997
Chairman Lubin advised that the subcommittee regarding the traffic aspects of the currently
proposed project consisted of Commissioners Haney and O'Donnell. Commissioner O'Donnell
reviewed the Summary of Findings regarding the Traffic Aspects of the currently proposed
project and the July 9, 1996 approved plan, recommending the Planning Commission find this
is a significantly different project overall than was originally evaluated: traffic volumes are
substantially higher, impacts are substantially greater, and the conditions, mitigations and fees
originally adopted are not adequate to mitigate these significantly greater impacts.
Two additional addenda were added which were part of the Environmental Impact Report. One
was Appendix B which was the CCTC Summary of Trips, and the other was Appendix C which
is the buildout levels of service which is referred to in our findings. It was noted that the
addenda should be changed to Appendix B and Appendix C. Commissioner Haney referred to
the draft dated September 2, 1997 regarding the Committee's findings and recommendations to
the City Council. With regard to the report, Commissioner Haney made corrections and
language modifications, noting that the Committee worked over the weekend on the report and
it does need a few changes.
Chairman Lubin referred to Item No. 6 of the Summary of Findings relative to Condition #134.
He stated staff commented to him that, in reviewing the minutes, this condition was added prior
to the public hearings held by the City Council, so Conditional #134 was in effect at the time
of the City Council public hearings. This item was reworded to clarify the intent. The
Commission was in agreement with the revision.
After further discussion staff was directed to make the changes and language modifications as
discussed. A motion was made by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner
Greene, and unanimously carried, to forward the Findings and Recommendations of the
Subcommittee on the Traffic Aspects of the currently proposed project to the City Council with
the changes and modifications as previously discussed.
The next items for discussion are Subcommittee Items 3 and 4 of the July 8, 1997 Council
motion concerning the map act conformity and relocation of loading docks. Commissioner
Green reviewed a copy of the report with the Commission pointing out minor corrections and
changes needed for clarification.
With respect to Finding #1, Commissioner Green stated the Subcommittee found that the
currently proposed project cannot accommodate a grocery store such as a store that is currently
contemplated without creating new and significant environmental impacts violating the terms,
conditions and limitations of the July 1996 agreement to develop the property.
Regarding the findings with respect to substantial conformance within the meaning of the
Subdivision Map Act, the Subcommittee found, that the currently proposed site plan is not in
substantial compliance with the tentative site map approved by the Planning Commission and the
City Council in 1996.
With respect to the location of the loading docks, the Subcommittee found in summary that the
loading docks must be relocated so as to mitigate the identified environmental impacts and to
avoid violating the relevant provisions of the City's General Plan and Development Code.
1
1
1
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4
September 2, 1997
Commissioner Haney proposed an alternative to the second item on the list "Proposed Additional
Findings to Section 3" as follows:
1. The currently proposed project provides for an additional 4 major loading docks
behind tenant spaces 3 through 7, now known as Buildings C, D and E and two
additional loading docks serving Building 8 (Major I). These loading docks were
not reflected on the July 9, 1996 approved plan or the accompanying elevations.
2. The increase in the number of loading docks and the attendant increase in noise,
pollution and major truck traffic serve to intensify the project and will have
impacts beyond those which were evaluated in the original Environmental Impact
Report.
It was suggested that the first paragraph be added as Finding B and the second paragraph
as Finding C, and then make the original Finding B amended to Finding D. The
Commission was in agreement with the recommended alternatives.
With regard to Finding "I ", Commissioner Haney proposed an expansion of the language
to Section 2, Finding I. the Commission was in agreement with the proposed language
addition.
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene and seconded by Commissioner Green and
unanimously carried to approve the subcommittee findings with the changes and language
modifications as discussed, for Item No. 3 (alternatives to the size and location of the grocery
store, substantial compliance with the meaning of the Subdivision Map Act) and Item No. 4
(alternatives to relocating loading docks so they are not that close to residences).
Chairman Lubin stated he thinks it would be appropriate that the Chairman of the Planning
Commission attend the City Council meeting on September 9, 1996 to provide a summary and
be available for comments and questions. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner
O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, Chairman Lubin was
requested to attend the City Council meeting during consideration of the Commission's findings
and recommendations.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM (CONTINUED) - REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF
APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPING AND PARKING PLAN, WEST BRANCH STREET,
CAMINO MERCADO AND RANCHO PARKWAY, AGRA, INC. (CEN'T'RAL COAST
TOWN CENTER); REPRESENTATIVE, KEN KAMMEYER
Commissioner Greene stated that the last time this item was discussed it was the consensus that
any consideration of the landscaping and parking plans would be premature and since there will
probably be some modifications in the project, any consideration devoted to the landscaping and
parking plans at this time would be a wasted effort. He further stated that he and Commissioner
Haney met with Mr. Kammeyer for about three hours at the site and discussed modifications and
improvements, and Mr. Kammeyer indicated to us that he would consider their recommendations
and would be updating the landscaping plan. Commissioner Greene recommended that this item
be dropped from the agenda pending further direction from the City Council.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
September 2, 1997
Howard Mann representing AGRA, requested this item be continued to the next regular Planning
Commission meeting on September 16, 1997 and not put off indefinitely. He stated that,
depending on the outcome of the City Council meeting next Tuesday, he would like to be in a
position to have the Commission review the landscaping and parking plans.
Ty Green, Attorney for the applicant, stated he doesn't feel it is appropriate to put this matter
off indefinitely and urged the Commission to at least have this item on the agenda for the
meeting of September 16, 1996.
After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner
Green, and carried with one "no" vote, this agenda item was continued to the next Planning
Commission meeting of September 16, 1997.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner
O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
TO CONTENT:
Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Cle
Doreen Lib - o- Blanck, AICP
Community Development Director
CSandy'Lubin, Ch'
Page 5
1
1